skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

School-based obesity prevention education

Public Health & Prevention: School-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2023.  Literature review updated November 2015.
Open PDF
The school-based obesity prevention education interventions included in this review provided classroom curriculum and instruction on nutrition and physical activity for elementary and middle school students. The programs were taught by classroom or physical education teachers during the school day and did not replace standard curriculum or health classes. The focus of the curriculum varied and included topics such as the importance of nutrition and physical activity, reducing soda consumption, and reducing in-screen time. With the exception of one intervention that took place over a four-year period, the other included programs took place during a single school year.
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2022). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $1 Benefits minus costs ($204)
Participants $1 Benefit to cost ratio ($0.48)
Others $1 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($69) benefits greater than the costs 47%
Total benefits ($66)
Net program cost ($138)
Benefits minus cost ($204)

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
10 7 1970 -0.063 0.060 11 0.000 0.101 13 -0.063 0.298
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Obesity Labor market earnings associated with obesity $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Health care associated with obesity $1 $0 $1 $0 $3
Mortality associated with obesity $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($69) ($69)
Totals $1 $1 $1 ($69) ($66)
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $116 2014 Present value of net program costs (in 2022 dollars) ($138)
Comparison costs $0 2014 Cost range (+ or -) 20%
Most of the programs in the meta-analysis were delivered in a single school year, and required an average of 37.6 hours of teaching and professional development. The per-student cost of the program was calculated by multiplying the teacher hours required by the average K-8th grade teacher's hourly salary and benefits and dividing by the average K-8th grade class size.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Gortmaker, S.L., Peterson, K., Wiecha, J., Sobol, A. M., Dixit, S., Fox, M. K., & Laird, N. (1999). Reducing obesity via a school-based interdisciplinary intervention among youth: Planet Health. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153(4), 409-418.

Graf, C., Koch, B., Falkowski, G., Jouck, S., Christ, H., Staudenmaier, K., . . . Dordel, S. (2008). School-based prevention: Effects on obesity and physical performance after 4 years. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(10), 987-994.

Harrison, M., Burns, C.F., McGuinness, M., Heslin, J., & Murphy, N.M. (2006). Influence of a health education intervention on physical activity and screen time in primary school children: “Switch Off-Get Active.”Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9(5), 388-394.

James, J., Thomas, P., Cavan, D., & Kerr, D. (2004). Preventing childhood obesity by reducing consumption of carbonated drinks: Cluster randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 328(7450).

Lionis, C., Kafatos, A., Vlachonikolis, J., Vakaki, M., Tzortzi, M., & Petraki, A. (1991). The effects of a health education intervention program among Cretan adolescents. Preventive Medicine, 20(6), 685-699.

Robinson, T.N. (1999). Reducing children's television viewing to prevent obesity: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(16), 1561-1567.

Spiegel, S.A. & Foulk, D. (2006). Reducing overweight through a multidisciplinary school-based intervention. Obesity, 14(1), 88-96.